Legal Opinion · Dissent

Graphic Communications Local 1B Health & Welfare Fund "A" v. CVS Caremark Corp.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided May 6, 2013No. A12-1555Published

1DissentSchellhas, Judge

I concur with the majority’s opinion that Minnesota’s generic prescription drug substitution statute, Minn.Stat. § 151.21, subd. 4 (2012), does not give rise to a private right of action for the pharmacists’ failure to pass on their entire cost savings when dispensing generic prescription drugs in place of brand-name prescription drugs. But I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion that appellants pleaded a legally sufficient claim under the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act (MCFA), Minn. Stat. § 325F.69, subd. 1 (2012), and the private attorney-general statute, Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subd.…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2001
  2. Morris v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
  3. Palmer v. Illinois Farmers InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2012
  4. Schermer v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2006
  5. Olson v. Moorhead Country ClubCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1997

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API